View full case

TRIAD SECURITY v. SILVESTRE ORTEGA

FACTS:

The petitioner, Triad Security and Allied Services, Inc., owned by Anthony U. Que, is a licensed security agency. The respondents, Silvestre Ortega, Jr., Ariel Alvaro, Richard Sevillano, Martin Callueng, and Isagani Capila, were former employees of Triad Security. The respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners and Ret. B/Gen. Javier D. Carbonell for labor violations. They alleged underpayment/nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, holiday and rest day premium pay, service incentive leave pay, holiday pay, and attorney's fees. The respondents also claimed illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, underpayment/nonpayment of allowances, separation pay, and other monetary claims. The respondents argued that they received less than the minimum wage, were not paid proper overtime, nightshift differential, and holiday pay, and were not given rest periods, service incentive leave pay, and 13th-month pay. Upon learning of the complaint, the petitioners terminated the respondents' services without notice and hearing. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents and ordered reinstatement, payment of backwages, separation pay, money claims, and attorney's fees. The decision became final, and a writ of execution was issued. However, the petitioners filed motions for recomputation and lifting of notices of garnishment, which were denied. The garnished funds were released to the respondents. The petitioners appealed to the NLRC, but the appeal was dismissed.

In another case, Pioneer Texturizing Corporation was ordered to reinstate former security guards and pay backwages. The labor arbiter issued an alias writ of execution, and the NLRC computed a higher amount of backwages and separation pay. The labor arbiter approved the computation and issued a second alias writ of execution. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to stop the execution of the second alias writ of execution. The Court of Appeals initially issued a temporary restraining order but ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that backwages should be computed from the date of termination.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it declared that the remedy adopted by the petitioners is erroneous.

  2. Whether or not petitioners should be held liable to the additional amount as contained in the 23 April 2003 order considering that the 28 February 2000 decision has already been fully satisfied.

  3. Whether or not the 30 September 2002 computation issued by the Computation and Examination Unit of the NLRC is correct and proper.

  4. Whether the petition for certiorari was correctly dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

  5. Whether the petitioners are still liable for the accrued backwages stated in the computation.

  6. Whether the petitioners are still liable to the respondents for accrued backwages and other benefits.

  7. Whether the computation of the basic salary used by the Computation and Examination Unit of the NLRC was erroneous.

RULING:

  1. The petition is partially meritorious. The Court held that the NLRC had no authority to issue the writ of certiorari in this case, and therefore, recourse to the Court of Appeals was proper. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute, but in this case, there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. The Court also explained that the NLRC does have authority to rule on a matter involving grave abuse of discretion by a labor arbiter under Article 223 of the Labor Code.

  2. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari. Although the remedy of appeal is limited under Article 223 of the Labor Code, a closer reading of the provision reveals that it is not as limited as understood by the petitioners. The grant of certiorari to the NLRC indicates that the lawmakers intended to broaden the meaning of appeal. Furthermore, the NLRC, as the administrative agency tasked with the review of labor cases, is in a better position to determine the merits of the petitioners' grounds for certiorari.

  3. The petitioners are still liable for the accrued backwages. Article 279 of the Labor Code states that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and backwages. Separation pay is granted only when reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations between the employee and the employer. In this case, the labor arbiter ordered reinstatement and the payment of backwages until actual reinstatement, with separation pay as an alternative. The petitioners failed to promptly reinstate the respondents, and until actual reinstatement or payment of separation pay, the obligation to pay backwages and other benefits continues to accumulate.

  4. The petitioners are still liable to the respondents for accrued backwages and other benefits from 25 February 2000 until 16 December 2002, despite the respondents finding new employment. The petitioners cannot be faulted for seeking new employment after being illegally dismissed and they should not be penalized for their perseverance.

  5. The computation of the basic salary used by the Computation and Examination Unit of the NLRC was erroneous. The correct rate of backwages is P223.50 per day from 25 February up to 31 October 2000, and P250.00 per day from 1 November 2000 until 16 December 2002.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The writ of certiorari may be granted against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions when there is jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion.

  • The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute and there are exceptions when an appeal would not be an adequate remedy.

  • Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, the NLRC has the authority to entertain an appeal from a labor arbiter's decision if there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion.

  • The remedy of appeal in labor cases is not as limited as understood, and certiorari may be granted to the NLRC when there is an abuse of discretion.

  • An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement.

  • Backwages and separation pay are distinct reliefs granted to illegally dismissed employees.

  • An order of reinstatement by the labor arbiter is not the same as actual reinstatement, and until the employer continuously fails to implement reinstatement, the obligation to pay backwages and benefits accumulates.

  • Petitioners are liable for accrued backwages and other benefits until actual reinstatement, even if respondents find new employment.

  • The correct rate of backwages should be determined based on the prevailing minimum wage at the time.